TT: Beauty is a Currency & It's Expensive
Classism, capitalism and the true cost of "natural beauty"
“Foundation is Dead,” declared a story published earlier this week in The New York Times. This isn’t the first headline predicting the end of full coverage makeup. Ever since the rise of the “Clean Girl” and “That Girl” aesthetics, several popular women’s outlets have declared that we reject foundation, often in favor of skin care. The NYT story asserts that a combination of “post-pandemic” life and a movement towards beauty, inclusivity and acceptance is at the heart of this movement away from the heavier foundation and “full makeup” looks of the 2010s. But I beg to differ.
What the writer (and no hate to her AT ALL) attributes to a “wave of self-acceptance,” I think, is actually just capitalism, classism and marketing. A clever trick played by the boys (and girls) of Madison Avenue to ensure that we’re always on a hamster wheel trying to achieve the standard of beauty. And how do you do that? You keep changing the standards.
Much like social media’s obsession with “quiet luxury,” this new take on natural beauty hinges entirely on class, status, race/ethnicity and how much money you can spend at Sephora during any given month.
Money Talks, Wealth Whispers -_-
Historically, the wealthy have always sought to differentiate themselves from the lower class; in mannerisms, institutions, the pursuit of wellness & hobbies, and appearance. The prevalence of historical sumptuary laws makes that pretty apparent. Sumptuary laws are defined as "Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures for apparel, food, furniture, or shoes, etc.” but historically, they were arbitrary appearance laws based on social and economic status. For example, a 1651 Massachusetts law restricts wearing “any gold or silver lace, or gold and silver buttons, or any bone lace above 2s. per yard, or silk hoods, or scarves” if the value of your estate did not exceed £200. At face value, this seems to help curtail foolish spending by the middle and lower classes, but how often have we heard accounts of nobility going into debt (such as the infamous Prince of Wales, who, by 1795, racked up more than £650,000 in debt)? For a large part of human history, the wealthy ensured that the lower classes could not dress like them—or else they’d have to pay.
In the absence of such laws (and with the invention of synthetic dyes, which killed off ancient Rome’s chokehold on the color purple), the wealthy have sought to inure other, slightly more subtle signs of wealth. I hate to use the term, but this is where “quiet luxury” comes from. It insists that rather than flashy displays of wealth, i.e., luxury monogram leather goods or a flashy foreign car, the genuinely wealthy use other hints to show their wealth to each other. And, depending on who you ask, you can either buy the correct items and copy these subtle hints, or you simply don’t have it, and you’re cosplaying.
In 2019, the whodunnit mystery film Knives Out had America’s favorite boyfriend, Chris Evans, as the wealthy, spoiled murderous Ransom Drysdale. Aside from villainous good acting, several spectators pointed out how Evans’ styling in the film was quintessential upper-class wealth: the damaged but well-made fisherman’s sweater, the obviously worn leather loafers; this, social media declared, was how the real wealthy folks dressed.
On the other hand, when recent stealth wealth It Girl, Sophia Richie Grainge, tied the knot earlier this year in a wedding that was decidedly very flashy, complete with a full Chanel wardrobe, the same commentators said, “No, THIS is wealth, this is quiet luxury.” I am not sure a Vogue magazine spread displaying your entire luxury wedding is the definition of “quiet.” But I don’t blame Richie since her wedding coincided with an already emerging trend that marketers and the media were foaming at the mouth to capitalize on. But between her marriage and mountain of Tiktok and Instagram posts, it quickly became clear that the only actual requirements for “quiet luxury” were being white and thin and foregoing any type of color. Color in your home, on your person, on your skin.
This distinction is critical to keep in mind as we look at the emergence of natural beauty as an indicator of class and wealth rather than eschewing society’s beauty standards, as some might lead us to believe.
It’s Expensive to Look This Trashy
I’m old enough to remember the height of the “beauty guru” era—when Anastasia Beverly Hills probably could have successfully run for president, and a new pallet dropped every week. Our Gods were MAC and Colour Pop, and our worship leaders Jackie Hill, Aina, James Charles, and the like. Where other religions turned to their holy books for guidance, we turned to Youtube. Every brush, primer, shadow, concealer and lipstick was better than whatever came out 48 hours prior. It was exhausting. And expensive. The holy grail Urban Decay NAKED palette was $54, a whopping price tag when you consider the majority of the beauty guru audience was teens and young adults.
Full glam, a style of makeup that emphasizes a smooth, blemish-free face and dramatic eye and lip makeup rather than enhancing “natural” beauty, was very popular, and the tutorials emphasized a multi-step routine that required expensive products and brushes, time, patience & skill. In retrospect, I realize that our collective obsession with a “full beat” could feel oppressive (the necessity for women to perform beauty in a patriarchal society as outlined by Covid truther Naomi Wolf), and let’s be honest, it kinda was. BUT, it also leveled the playing field in the eternal pursuit of beauty, even if it was just by a small measure.
Let me explain.
Full-coverage foundation actually covered hyperpigmentation and acne, which we’ve learned is heavily attributed to your genetic profile. Eyeshadows and lipsticks could emphasize eyes of all colors and lips of all sizes. A well-placed blush and contour could transform your face, though I have to state that contouring to minimize or “remove” your ethnic features remains an issue the beauty community often ignores. Strip eyelashes enhanced eyes, rather or not you naturally had long lashes. My point is, depending on your level of skill, this style of makeup could help women and femmes (and transwomen, a half-baked thought I’ll circle back on a bit later) achieve the kind of ultra-feminine beauty that’s been shoved down our throats for years. Whether or not that helped or hurt feminism depends on who you ask, but now that we’re in the natural beauty and “skincare era,” I see that full glam did have a purpose, which wasn’t necessarily bad.
No worse than pretending your beauty came from genetics as opposed to a syringe.
Effortless Beauty is Rarely Effortless…or Cheap
Something I’ve noticed about the many articles about the “end of foundation,” like this one from the UK’s Metro Newspaper, and this one from Pop Dust, is that they aren’t advocating for fewer products than full glam. Quite the opposite, thanks to affiliate income targets, the media recommends that we throw away our makeup in favor of a more robust and expensive skincare routine. Luxury brands like Shiseido and celebrity-backed skincare lines like Rihanna’s Fenty and Hailey Bieber’s Rhode Beauty are a stark reminder that as our interests evolve, so does capitalism. And what we could easily attribute to the pandemic and more self-awareness is honestly just excellent marketing. Yet again, it also has us looking to celebrities and the wealthy as hallmarks for what looks good and how we can replicate it.
Here’s the thing, effortless beauty is rarely (read: not) effortless. At all. The wealthy and celebrities invest a small fortune in their windblown, girl-about-town looks, and if you peel back the curtain just a bit, you’ll see what I mean. That bouncy hair? Extensions, and four-figure weekly salon visits. The gleaming white teeth? $20,000 veneers. The eternally svelte figure? Addera—I mean, pilates and premium ingredients prepared on a $10,000 stove. Are you picking up what I’m putting down?
The idea that embracing “natural beauty” is somehow an extension of self-actualization is a bit laughable when you realize that you’re putting just as much time and effort into your look, rather that’s once every four-to-six weeks or every morning. We also can’t have this conversation without discussing beauty as a hallmark of class (as I explained at the top of the post). Of course, Haille Beiber has flawless skin and “effortless” good looks; she has millions of dollars at her disposal. She has the time, money and connections to enhance herself in a way that doesn’t require you to be born beautiful, but it does require a substantial financial investment.
Contributing editor Jessica Andrews summarized beauty as a distinction of class in her own life in an Elle UK story from 2022:
“Up until that point, my experience of working-class culture was about flaunting what you’ve got and showing off what you worked hard to be able to afford. But in this new world, anything flashy or showy was considered to be in poor taste - and this trickled right down to the ritual of make-up. My university friends didn’t wear much of it, just tinted moisturiser, mascara and a slick of lip balm.
Some of them didn’t wear make-up at all, casually baring the results of their expensive skincare. My own heavy eyeshadow seemed extreme in contrast.”
This type of natural beauty is nothing more than another way to distinguish the haves and the have-nots, and I think it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Beauty as a Biological Advantage, Rather than Skill
There’s also evidence that girls and women are more insecure in our physical forms than ever and turning to other expensive avenues to make up the difference. According to The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, there’s been a 55% increase in non-surgical procedures over the past four years. So while the girls are putting down the concealer, they are picking up Botox and fillers in alarming numbers (I have to state here that I don’t judge anyone for their cosmetic choices, do you, babe)—IF they can afford it, of course. One of my favorite fashion commentators, Rian Phin, said it best: “Beauty shifted to being about the semblance of biological advantage rather than skill. We see this transition through the shift toward skincare, surgery/injectables, [and] lash extensions.”
One quick note on the “biological advantage” I don’t see being emphasized a lot is how I feel this swing towards natural beauty is also suspiciously happening around the same time as the rapid rise in anti-trans sentiment. Transwomen have long used full glam as part of their feminine expression, so how does this impact their ability to participate in womanhood? I really don’t know, but I have noticed how often full glam is ignorantly associated with “drag makeup,” which I hate as they are two different forms of art and both beautiful in their own way.
Are we truly embracing self-acceptance? No. Sorry. As long as capitalism, classism and white supremacy (because the racial component cannot be overstated here and could have easily added another 1500 words to this post) drive trends, I fear that we’ll continue to strive for whatever made-up standard of beauty is in at the moment. Today, it’s natural beauty. Tomorrow? I can’t say for sure, but I know it will come with a price.
I hope you enjoyed this week’s Thursday’s Thoughts; if you did and you’re already a subscriber, please consider sharing this with friends and family, and than you for reading!
Did people also differ the natural beauty phase of cover girl and neutrogena? This is not new!!